Slashdot Mirror
Bright LCD Patent Dispute
pcp_ip writes "Honeywell filed suit Wednesday against 34 companies (including, Apple, Dell, Sony, Kodak, Fuji et al.) for infringment of patent 5,280,371. The patent for "a directional diffuser for a liquid crystal display" was filed on January 1994 and enables "a display to produce a brighter image without requiring additional power." Honeywell is looking for an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing to infringe its patent, and for "damages adequate to compensate them for Defendants infringement." So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?"
Kodak, eh? Oh isn't Karma a bitch? :-)
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Apple and Dell don't even make LCD panels... All they do OEM panels from various manufacturers and put them in a plastic housing with some accessory electronics...
Surely it would be the manufacturer that's infringing, right?
are belong to Honeywell.
Set us up the patent.
BUT..
why are they suing the people who are selling the LCDs? Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?
As everyone (should) know, there aren't very many companies that actually make these things..
I am the maverick of Slashdot
If Honeywell were such genuii to come up with this idea in the first place, why werent they producing them? The alternative - that they were patent squatting and waiting for the lawsuit returns to build up - is just too shocking to think!
How are they doing in the market place!
I can think of SCO, Kodak, Unisys and now Honeywell. I will venture all is not well at the little Honey
Help fight continental drift.
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=honeywe ll&page=pressrel_detail&theme=T8&id=A76N12RRDKX3GS IB1JIFWSY92LOX9108H&catID=cat1b754a4-fb536f3d74-3e 3e4447ab3472a0c2a5e5fdc1e6517d&c=n
Honeywel l Files Lawsuit Against 34 Electronics Companies For Infringing Patented LCD Technology
MORRIS TOWNSHIP, New Jersey, October 6, 2004 -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) today filed a lawsuit against 34 electronics companies claiming infringement of a Honeywell patent for technology that increases the brightness of images and that reduces the appearance of certain interference effects on a liquid crystal display (LCD).
Honeywell’s lawsuit claims the company’s patented technology is being used in a variety of consumer electronics products, including notebook computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, portable DVD players, portable LCD TVs, video game systems, and digital still cameras.
"Honeywell invests millions of dollars in research and development every year, and we aggressively defend our intellectual property to protect that substantial investment,” said John Donofrio, Vice President of Intellectual Property at Honeywell.
Honeywell's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the district of Delaware, asks for monetary damages and an injunction to prohibit selling products that infringe its patent.
"The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent," said Donofrio. "Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses as a core component of our strategic business model," Donofrio said. "We are pleased that LG.Philips and Samsung Electronics are benefiting through their licenses from our technology."
Defendants named in Honeywell’s lawsuit are:
- Apple Computer, Inc.
- Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc.
- Audiovox Corporation
- Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
- Casio, Inc.
- Concord Cameras
- Dell Inc.
- Eastman Kodak Company
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.
- Fujitsu Limited
- Fujitsu America, Inc.
- Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc.
- Kyocera Wireless Corp.
- Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.
- Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America
- Navman NZ Limited
- Navman U.S.A. Inc.
- Nikon Corporation
- Nikon Inc.
- Nokia Corporation
- Nokia Americas
- Olympus Corporation
- Olympus America, Inc.
- Pentax Corporation
- Pentax U.S.A., Inc.
- Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
- Sanyo North America
- Sony Corporation
- Sony Corporation Of America
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.
- Toshiba Corporation
- Toshiba America, Inc.
Honeywell International is a $23 billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell’s shares are traded on the New York, London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. For additional information, please visit www.honeywell.com
This release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations, financial performance and market conditions. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts as further described in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act.
Contact:
Ron Crotty
602-436-6823
From reading the patent it looks like Honeywell actually had a decent and possibly novel invention. I say possibly because the solution they propose is obvious to anyone trying to solve their particular problem, however no one before had tried to solve their problem hence its originality. Now... as to exactly what Honeywell's problem is...
They decided that in displays used in situations like fighter jets, air traffic control towers and commercial airlines, having displays "bleed" out of the angle of view is not desirable. For instance, you don't want a reflection of your cockpit display in the corner of your eye from the canopy. They designed a "system of lenses" to reduce this out-of-angle light and redirect it to viewing angles.
The problem seems to come when they filed for the patent on the system. Instead of describing the system as a way to limit/redirect unused/undesired light they wrote it as a system to increase the amount of desired light. My guess as to why is because it's much easier to sue someone trying to make their displays brighter than it is to find someone trying to make their displays darker.
The reason I say that they intended to sue/collect royalties from every manufacturer was because they went ahead and sued every single manufacturer. They did not attempt to license their technology (but of course they wouldn't... Because Honeywell also manufacturers LCD's. They'd love to put their competitors out of business.) This is all just an abuse of the patent/court system to try and get ahead... too bad it works so well.
Oh, and I have some prior art. You see, I'm sure someone had an LCD with some backlights about 10 years ago, and wanted it to be brighter in the area they were viewing... so they put a MIRROR behind it. What a novel idea! They should have patented it.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
As I wear polarized glasses most of the time, and the directional diffuser makes it nearly impossible to read many laptop screens.
However, my IPAQ doesn't seem to have one- anybody else able to see or have problems with directional diffusers who can verify this?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I would like to draw everyones attention to a patent I submitted for review. It basiclly states the effect of hundreds of requests being put on a server in a matter of minutes following the posting of a story on /. forcing the server to BSOD.
I'll be collecting from you all in the near future. First Post oh yeah!
Wait, they have had this since 1994 and are just now getting around to filing? damn, could they have had to wait this long to ensure as many people as possible used this tech to ensure lots of lawsuits, and a high likelyhood of cashflow?
Lawsuit 101: You go for the deep pockets with the shotgun approach.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
Well let's see, according to you there's a lawsuit... but you don't seem to be able to reveal the source as you don't include one. Interesting.
The problem with patents rears its ugly head again... I have a friend who recently graduated and got a job at a Patent lawyer at a large corporation. His whole job is looking over old patents and "checking" to see if there are any modern infringments, ie: who can we sue that has mad money off of something we couldn't. sigh...
Just based off the number of companies that the plaintiff is filling against, this doesn't look to me like a case of someone deliberately stealing another's patented idea. It looks like a squatter sitting on an idea, and trying to extort money off of whoever happens to try to inovate.
I'm all for the idea of patents, but this sort of thing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The Patent was actually filed July 9, 1992. I've got an idea for some patent reform: Let your patent get knowingly infringed for 1 year - lose the patent.
I don't mean to be rude, but your post is unintelligible.
"set us up the patent"?? What does that mean?
Get a clue lamer!
This patent litigation is really getting absurd. I find it hilariously ironic that Kodak is named here after just crowing about its software patent win over Sun last week.
Now, just get Sun to file something against HP and you've got a three way standoff. Schweet! Get some popcorn and enjoy the show!
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Why are these dinosaurs (Kodak, Honeywell, SCO) feeding on the mammals, instead of either eating each other, or just dying off as they're destined to?
Who's next? Fairchild Camera?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
IPAQ doesn't seem to have one
Tild your head (or IPAQ) 90 degrees.
It might not help, but it's fun just the same. (no, seriously, try it.)
Agreed. The OP should at least get the quote right:
Someone set us up the patent!
Hye thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot to slashdot them. I went and clicked the honey well link and hit refresh a few times ;-)
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Someone set up us the erroneous quote.
Perhaps this is why Apple etc are being sued... Im sure the law doesnt allow you to simply get around patents by simply buying from a country where the patent protection did not apply. And if they are getting their equipt this way they are the point of entry and therefore responsible for the alleged infringement.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Good god. Does nobody speak english properly nowadays?
That's just as bad as the original post..
No, it's "Someone set UP US the patent!" /nerdier than thou
I don't even want to hear about new display technology until I can throw some grey goo at the wall and have them new fangled nanomachines playing video.
enables "a display to produce a brighter image without requiring additional power."
... patent laws are indeed becoming rediculous.. and i agree with the above post - 'knowingly let your patent get used for one year - lose patent'
hmmm. wonder if having a super bright display that can become less bright, using the same amount of power is ok.
//i have as many lives as people i know.
Maybe I'm going against the grain here, but I am pleased to see a patent for an actual physical implementation of a technology being defended, instead of all the bogus so-called "software patents" we've been hearing about for the last few years. Some patents are quite reasonable and legit, but with all the st00pid bogus patents getting all the press lately even legit patents are getting a bad rap.
Kudos for Honeywell, a company you don't hear about throwing it's weight around all the time, defending a patent that describes a process and physical implementation that actually DOES something. If they'd patented a method for vertical alignment of viewing sensors in front of a display apparatus to maximize contrast and enhance look-angle (ie. the up-down adjustment on your office chair), then we'd have reason to throw rotten fruit, but this patent seems to be a legitimate technological concept.
Give them a break... Rightous patents should be defended rigorously or there is no incentive to do core research. Don't let the flood of worthless patents or the incompetence of the patent examiners destroy the legitimate use of the patent system.
At some point these patent suits are going to gridlock the tech industry. The gov't should intervene, perhaps having a court with jurisdiction staying all of these suits until the patent office or whoever, decides how to handle these suits. We are going to see a landslide of these as companies dig through their 10+ year old stash of patents looking for a gold vein.
http://www.busyweather.com/
The new Sony CLIE PEG-VZ90 has a 480×320x16b OLED display. Available in Japan only, at present. A bigger picture and some news links here.
I pledge allegiance, to the United Corporations of America. One nation, under corporate litigation, and justice for no one (but the CEO's and their lawyers).
"...why werent they producing them?
They do produce them. They are used in their APEX integrated cockpit. Besides, if you google for "Honeywell" and "LCD" you'll see that most of the hits are for companies licensing LCD technology from Honeywell, like Samsung, NEC, and Toshiba.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Goatse.CX link...
try to get your hands on an LCD lacking the polarized portion of the coating, then only people with polarized glasses could see the screen
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Sounds like a submarine patent to me. Honeywell has apparently been lurking in the depths and waiting for the environment to become rich in targets. And now they've fired the torpedoes.
God damnit.
I work for Honeywell.
Now, who to vote for, Honeywell or Apple...
IBM makes billions each year from its patents.
No goatse link this time. Google cache link is both work-safe and family-friendly.
Looks like that GCOS web server is having a little trouble just now.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Come on, this is not a software patent. This is a hardware patent, involving actual research and engineering!
Bitch all you want to about software patents, but physical inventions have been and will continue to be valid. Information may want to be free, but the atoms that make up the physical world are rather fond of various forces keeping them bound. And that's the way it should be.
I briefly had polarized glasses like that and saw many screens, and it's true, the iPaq was fine somehow. What stunk for me was that my lenses were slightly different from each other, so while one eye was seeing a half-brightness screen, the other was seeing a full-brightness screen, and it gave me a wickedly bad headache in about 15 minutes.
On the other hand, walking around my office of mostly LCDs, the flickering I kept seeing reminded me of that old Captain Power show... I kept wanting to get a laser gun and shoot things.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
Some ATM's have them on their LCD displays. Took me a little bit to figure out why I couldn't see the screen when I had my sunglasses on.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
that use this?
I may be wrong on that one, but I believe they use these things on some of their military electronics displays. Even if the display is manufactured by another company, they'll slap one of these bad boys on the ass end of it and the display will be like "WOW!" and put out more.
... thinking on a more global scale and decades instead of years, might there be any consequences if a huge part of the globe realizes the possible conclusion that the scope of USPTO patents should be restricted to where they belong?
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It seems to me that aspect alone should defeat most "submarine" patents. Unless you can prove that they knowingly stole your idea, the scope of the lawsuit should automatically invalidate your patent.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm foolish enough to attempt to hold government bodies up to standards of common sense...
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
I work at Honeywell, and it's a huge company with many pursuits. As long as warlords are in power, I don't think Honeywell has anything to worry about.
straight from honeywell's website. maybe you should check some facts and pull your head out of your ass before spouting off about "patent bs"
Here's why:
So much for LCD prices coming down! Where's OLED when you need it?
Wrong! The problem here is not OLED!
The problem here is the fucking stupid patent system! Submarine patents should be illegal. If you want a lottery ticket, go buy one. Don't clutter up the courts with nonsense bullshit gold digging.
And don't turn a blind eye to companies who pull this horseshit. Don't just roll over and take it. "Here's hoping OLED comes out soon"??? Bullcrap. Here's hoping the US Courts System someday pulls their collective heads out of their asses and fixes things.
EOR
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I agree about them being bad. The screen on my Dell laptop looks pants next to my mates HP/Compaq/Whatever they're called this week. Specifically when you have a light gret area next to a white area (e.g. the /. IT theme). From a normal angle you can't see the difference, and from a high angle, they're actually reversed with the grey being brighter than the white.
In fact the viewing angle is so small that the screen doesn't look consistent from top to bottom. This tech suddenly makes sense of this problem.
I notice that HP is conspicuous by it's abscence from the list of companies being sued.
I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
what i want to see is Plasma technology implemented in computer monitors, much better picture - probably could be just as good or better than CRT...
sig - anony_mouse_cow_ard
90 degrees didn't show anything-but maybe it does still have a diffuser, just a different kind of one, because at 45 degrees I see rainbows.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
They are talking about the web.archive.org link, dipshit.
Zero Wing parody.
Do patents not work the same way?!!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Seems like Honeywell just waited for their patent to get used and now wants to sue everyone for using what they thought they had the right to. Perhaps a good patent reform would require that to be liable for patent infringment one had to have knowledge that a patent was being violated otherwise the patent holder is only entitled to future royalties.
I see... (http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/genesis/file/zero_ wing.txt)
Yikes.. that's much too nerdy for me.
Why people idolize a piss poor translation of a low-budget '80s video game is beyond me..
Took them 10 years to figure out that they're being infringed upon? Not a company I'd want to own stock in.
Or is this an outright scam? Wait until everyone is using it and then sue, as opposed to telling them in the beginning and letting them decide to license, work around, or do without.
If this has been a scam to wait until it is widely adopted, and then ask for all back royalities, the patent should be invalidated for lack of notice and enforcement, and Honeywell should be given NOTHING!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because a good translation of a high budget '04 game wouldn't funny? :P
Actually, those are peril-sensitive glasses. And, erm... you may want to step away from that laptop in a moment.
I notice that HP is conspicuous by it's abscence from the list of companies being sued.
I think the HP LCDs are manufactured by one of the companies that did license this technology. If true, they would be in the clear.
So much for innovation, eh?
And now, Kodak sues Sun similarly. The abused becomes another abuser. The circle continues.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The number would be higher, but there are companies who make LCD screens who have licensed this technology...and companies who sell these non-infringing screens.
They're not going after Nintendo!
Want a free Nintendo DS? http://c.qckjmp.com/az/ch.php?f=936&i=1492/
Honeywell makes civilian aerospace products as well.
I was just reading that LCD was expected to beat out plasma tecnology for televisions in the long run. I would think that this patent would also apply to LCD televisions.
Has LCD already cornered the PC monitor market? I've always wondered why there weren't more plasma displays available for my computer....
D'oh!
According to Honeywell's release, Samsung licensed their technology.
According to Samsung, Sony and Samsung have a joint partnership in lcds: SAMSUNG and Sony Signed a MOU for TFT LCD Joint Venture
So, Sony buys its lcd panels as OEMs from Samsung. So, Sony is purchasing its lcds from a licensee of the technology.
If you look at some lists of lcd manufacturers and LCD/LED Driver IC Manufacturers, you'll notice that very few of the listed defendents actually manufacture panels. There's Fujitsu, Kyocera, Sanyo, and Toshiba/Matsushita.
Would you rather that everybody go sue happy on the first technicalty of infringement? I LIKE the fact that companies only sue when there's some money involved. If they HAD to sue right away to defend their rights, they would be spending more money on lawsuits than on R&D.
Mathematics is not a crime.
You have a point how a good translation wouldn't be funny..
but I don't see how a poor translation IS funny..
Someone mentioned that soon we'd be calling every ridiculous patent case a kodak moment. Here's to the first of many, many, MANY kodak moments to come! :-(
Funny how it takes them 10 years to cry foul and say we want our money.. Given LCD displays recently became popular in the last 4 years but still they had been around much longer than that just extremely expensive.
Once again we see the trend..
Patent X
Quietly waits until it's popular
Profit!
IBM. Why? Probably because IBM has so many patents up the wazoo that to sue it for patent infringement will almost certainly result in a countersuit for twice as much for twice as many patents. What's the moral of the story? The best defence against idiotic patents is to have more idiotic patents than everyone else.
As a software engineer, I have no clue about the technology involved in making an LCD screen brighter without using extra power, but the idea dazzles me and my first reaction was that this company SHOULD uphold its patent basically because I dont understand how it works.
It struck me that I NEVER agree with any of the software patents that are proposed by various entities, because I generally have a deep understanding of how the relevant technology operates.
This is why I understand why it is so difficult to educate laymen of the dangers of software patents. I too am swayed by aruments for patents if I am impressed by technology I dont understand
making, using, or selling the patented matter. This means you're shafted even if all you do is buy an infringing item from somebody who's making and/or selling without a license from the patentholder. Of course, you would probably have a cause of action (lawsuit) against the folks you bought the infringing item from. So Apple might have a cause of action against their LCD supplier, but Apple is still in Honeywell's cross-hairs for infringement.
If I am not mistaken ... Apple has made investments in the LCD lines of Samsung and LG Philips (through Chi Mei Electronics)
If I am also not mistaken this included sharing patent and development knowledge between Apple and said companies.
Since Apple may move to OLED or another technology and be involved in it's creation, enhancement and deployment - maybe they could offer Honeywell a piece of that pie to be "dropped" from litigation.
Otherwise - I think Honeywell is unjustly going after the computer makers because they are simply OEM and ODM from essentially 4 main conglomerates: Samsung, Sharp, LG Philips, Mitsubishi - there are smaller players in abundance but these four control about 80% of the market.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
The practical application of light has been around for a very long time. Look at the fluorescent lights above your head (if your at work), What kind of lenselets or diffuser is being used? Look at the tail lights on cars, the red plastic is internally (or sometimes externally) covered with bumps(lenses) to redirect the light. This is very old technology for light guiding.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
...it both rewards the inventor and adds knowledge to society.
If patents are to add knowledge to a broader part of the public, I think we need a patent application de-obfuscator. Most patent applications don't resemble normal language at all. Let's take the patent that describes run-length encoding (RLE), for instance. It is amazing how many pages of text is used to describe this so-called 'apparatus' that transforms n consequtive values of x into the two values x and n.
Being the suspicious paranoid that I am, I cannot keep from wondering if this, let's call it creative rewriting (to be nice), is still in use because someone actually finds it useful...
Probably in continuing patent litigation... :/
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
>>> Let your patent get knowingly infringed for 1 year .....
That's laches [ see directly above ]. You cannot 'hold out' for years, attempting to maximize the amount of damages you think you have accrued.
I.E. You know you have a small roof leak. You cannot deliberately not call the repair man waiting for your entire house to fall apart and then sue for the whole value of you house.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
If Samsung has licensed the patent, and Apple or Dell use Samsung LCD panels, doesn't that make Apple or Dell clear, or do you have to double license? That seems fishy.
- oZ
// i am here.
I beleive there is law against submarine patents, the doctrine of laches. Of course defending against patent lawsuits is resource intensive. Could be used by IBM against the ashes of SCO. Laches can be used as a defense whent the there is evidence that the patent holder knew of violations but failed to prosecute in a timely fashion. I think there will be settlements and the ten year moritorium will weaken the negotiation position of Honeywell.
What's wrong with patenting LCD displays? I, for one, welcome our new security-conscious overlords.
"Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses ..."
The complaint most often levied at the current (US) patent system is that it stifles competition. Supporters argue that patent holders are willing to license their IP, so only the owner of the patent gets an advantage; that still qualifies as competition. But here we have Honeywell admitting to what is common practice; licensing only in cases where the product does not compete with anything Honeywell sells. This is clearly a case of preventing competition.
Would the patent system work better if all patent holders were required to license their IP, at fair prices, to all comers? Businesses are required to do business equitably with everyone who wants to do business. Similarly, Honeywell expects to be allowed to bid on -- compete for -- DoD contracts. I'm not sure what their expectation is concerning fair play and equal treatment, given the current Washington culture, but we do have laws that attempt to keep things fair and competitive. Why then should they expect patent law to protect them for competition?
The best way to approach this would be to remove protections, rather than adding requirements, and let the free market work its magic.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
Another example of a dying company trying to save their ass via old patents..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now before some KW claims that first sale applies only to copyrights, I'd like to remind readers that an unconditional sale of a patented product, such as a retail sale, brings into play the similar exhaustion doctrine.
They are a great idea but you don't seem them in mass use because they are expensive to produce and fade. The fade rate is apparently high enough that they cannot be used in monitors.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So why did Honeywell delay in bringing the lawsuit? The most likely answer seems to be to increase possible damages and to let the companies become dependent on the technology.
You're on the right track to a defense. Patent case law recognizes a defense called laches. It isn't as strict as the corresponding rule in trademark law, but it does limit the damages that a patent holder can collect if he harms an alleged infringer by delaying legal action.
I would love to see OLED screens replace LCDs, but we're supposed to hate Kodak now!
Early 1980s invention plus 20 year patent term = patent expiry in early 2000s, therefore Kodak can no longer sit on the technology, and that explains why OLEDs are finally hitting the market.
First Kodak laysoff a ton of people(old slashdot story go find th elink yourself) then this happens.
If you're hoping for the end of of LCDs you'are gonna be disappointed. I played with that unit two days ago. The display is crisp and fast, but the flicker of it refreshing is visible and the UI has to be mostly black because unlike LCDs every on pixel costs more power.
An OLED with more than 1/3rd of the pixels lit (any color other than black) uses more power than an equivalent backlight LCD. And a good LCD, like the one on the Sony DSC-T1 can be used without the backlight on. An OLED cannot match that.
Class 1 - "Another Bullshit Patent"
This is a terrific argument. Without having read the patent or the details of the case, the Class 1 Slashdot Troll will respond to any news of a Patent lawsuit with the charge that it is just another bullshit submarine patent - even if the suit is perfectly legitimate and meritorious.
Class 2 - "Fucking SCO^H^H^H $COMPANY"
The classic socialist anti-corporation neanderthal response. These trolls would rather go back to living in caves and subsisting on bugs and rainwater that admit that the basic premise of collaborative technological advancement has done good for society as a whole, or that monetary motivators have contributed equally well.
Class 3 - "This technology sucks anyway"
The technological expert. This troll thinks he or she knows something about the technology, and therefore that they can espouse a legitimate argument that the technology sucks anyway. Even though the technology is ubiquitous, which therefore implies that it does not indeed suck. The technological expert is a walking paradox that can only make him/herself look like an ass.
Class 4 - "IANAL"
Here are some random links about law I found using google. Also lumped with the Armchair Lawyer is the "My $FAMILY_MEMBER is a lawyer, and therefore I know something about law" crowd. The clever "IANAL" disclaimer, they feel, gives them carte blanche to spew whatever uninformed legal theories they feel like uttering at the time, and for that they think they deserve +1: Insightful or some other cookie of a reward.
Did I miss any?
That's gold I tells ya! Patent it while you have the chance! Or does your post on Slashdot count as prior art?
HBH
"Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
The reason Honeywell is sueing in the first place is because they know their implementation of LCD technology has finally reached its peak and can only decline from this point as other competing implementations for doing the same or similar things (OLED) become increasingly popular. Just as we're rounding the crest of this technology's projected life span, we'll simply sue the people responsible for its increase in the first place.
The directional diffuser has nothing to do with polarization; LCDs depend on polarization effects anyway.
The first claim of the Honeywell patent covers a backlight diffuser consisting of two sheets of cylindrical lenses between the backlight and the screen, with the front sheet having a larger number of lenses per unit height than the back, and both having more lenses per unit height than the number of lines per unit height of the display.
The second claim covers the same device as the first claim specifically when the number of lenses per unit height of the front sheet is not an integral multiple of either the number of lenses per unit height of the back sheet or of the number of lines per inch of the display. IMO, given the device of the first claim, this one's pretty obvious.
The third claim is independent and claims the innovation of having the lenses slightly rotated with respect to each other.
The prior art covers, among other things, a display with two sheets of cylindrical lenses where one is in front of the display and the other between the display and the light.
The patent is certainly useful and seems novel, but I'm not versed in the field; maybe it is anticipated by the prior art. The bit about waiting 10 years before bringing suit is the problem, IMO.
Sun settled the case - you don't normally appeal after a settlement.
Honeywell kept their part of the bargain. They made their invention publicly available. The people infringing on that invention should keep their part of the bargain, and fucking pay for the benefit. Simple.
If this is what I think it is, then there is prior art in the lenses used in some lighthouses (used to guide ships at sea); but I wouldn't know if that counts in a non-lighthouse context (for invalidating the patent).
Press Releases
Honeywell Files Lawsuit Against 34 Electronics Companies For Infringing Patented LCD Technology
MORRIS TOWNSHIP, New Jersey, October 6, 2004 -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) today filed a lawsuit against 34 electronics companies claiming infringement of a Honeywell patent for technology that increases the brightness of images and that reduces the appearance of certain interference effects on a liquid crystal display (LCD).
Honeywell's lawsuit claims the company's patented technology is being used in a variety of consumer electronics products, including notebook computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, portable DVD players, portable LCD TVs, video game systems, and digital still cameras.
"Honeywell invests millions of dollars in research and development every year, and we aggressively defend our intellectual property to protect that substantial investment," said John Donofrio, Vice President of Intellectual Property at Honeywell.
Honeywell's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the district of Delaware, asks for monetary damages and an injunction to prohibit selling products that infringe its patent.
"The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent," said Donofrio. "Honeywell has a long history of successfully licensing proprietary technologies worldwide for non-competing uses as a core component of our strategic business model," Donofrio said. "We are pleased that LG.Philips and Samsung Electronics are benefiting through their licenses from our technology."
Defendants named in Honeywell's lawsuit are:
- Apple Computer, Inc.
- Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc.
- Audiovox Corporation
- Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
- Casio, Inc.
- Concord Cameras
- Dell Inc.
- Eastman Kodak Company
- Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
- Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.
- Fujitsu Limited
- Fujitsu America, Inc.
- Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc.
- Kyocera Wireless Corp.
- Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.
- Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America
- Navman NZ Limited
- Navman U.S.A. Inc.
- Nikon Corporation
- Nikon Inc.
- Nokia Corporation
- Nokia Americas
- Olympus Corporation
- Olympus America, Inc.
- Pentax Corporation
- Pentax U.S.A., Inc.
- Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
- Sanyo North America
- Sony Corporation
- Sony Corporation Of America
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
- Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.
- Toshiba Corporation
- Toshiba America, Inc.
Honeywell International is a $23 billion diversified technology and manufacturing leader, serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials. Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on the New York, London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges. It is one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average and is also a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. For additional information, please visit www.honeywell.comThis release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations, financial performance and market conditions. Such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts as further described in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act.
Contact:
Ron Crotty
602-436-6823
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The only way we infinge on a patent is if we did the research ourselves and independantly developed the method. The patent system adds a cost to developing new technologies, thus hindering advancement.
The only value I see with patents is to prevent competition or to draw money from other people's independant work -- thus damaging capitalism. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
There are TONS of cases of patent abuse.. this is not one of them.. as has been said a few times already...
Honeywell USES this patent it isn't a submarine patent either as it's been licensed. The legal process in this country takes forever, as well, so they have probably been negotiating with these companies for a long time, and then weren't getting anywhere and realized that if their R'nD wasn't going to be wasted, they had to sue..
Honeywell is in the right here, the patent is clear, they use their own patent, it's for a tangible process and device...
replacing it with NEW Folger's Crystals! (lets see if they notice the difference)
All LCDs have a polarized section, it's critical to the functioning of the device.
This is about lenses behind the screen to focus the backlight into a narrower swath, increasing brightness and decreasing off-angle light
Those folks sold to 3M who now own all rights to the Billion Dollar a year Dbef (directional brightness enhancing film) market. Dbefs are films that allow some light that was polarized one way to change polarization, while keeping the other axis unchanged, can nearly double backlight brightness and dramatically improves image quality. The honeywell case really infringes on the OSI/3M patents and I know screwing with 3M is bad bad news. They might not be selling Dbef, but they are trying to get a royalty out of 3M customers for buying 3M products and using them. I might be misstating facts, But I know someone will come and bash me for it.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
or is there a growing trend of large, old-line dinosaur corporations using the patent system to bring in much-needed capital to try and ease their slow decline into oblivion?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
honeywell uses dell lcd monitors in their indutrial automation project
Sun settled for millions of dollars to cross license the patents.
They're not going to appeal.
all normal LCD's have a polarizing film, i have read about "privacy" screens which do not have part of the polarizing film, which instead lies in the glasses of the user.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The fact that so many came up with, and did not attempt to patent, exactly the same idea shows the incongruity between what the patent office considers "obvious" (and thus, unpatentable), and what *we* consider obvious (and thus, something that should not enjoy patent protection).
Or something like that.
Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of all "IP" law at this rate, and would almost be tempted to abolish it entirely, though there are far more legitimate ways to use it...
What is a "directional diffuser"? It sounds a lot like a fresnel lens, with 200 years of prior art.
It's called Engrish. look up "Engrish" then look up "all your base" include the quotes for the phrase. All will become clear though you'll feel your time has slipped away with nothing gained.
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.